June 8, 2007 Law
Requiring Sanction to Prosecute Corrupt Officials Challenged
New Delhi
Close on the heels of Uttar Pradesh Governor T.V. Rajeshwar refusing
sanction to prosecute state Chief Minister Mayawati for alleged
corruption in the Taj Corridor scam, an advocate moved the Supreme
Court Friday challenging the constitutional validity of a law
requiring prior sanction to prosecute public servants.
Advocate Manjoor Ali Khan, in a Public Interest Litigation filed
with the apex court registry, questioned the constitutional validity
of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides
for prior sanction from an appropriate authority to prosecute a
public servant.
Khan urged the court to abolish the statutory provision for prior
sanction to prosecute public servants, including Members of
Parliament, legislative assemblies, ministers and chief ministers of
state, arguing that it violated the constitutional provision of
equality before law and protection of life and liberty.
He said that Section 19 of the Act gave unguided and arbitrary power
to the central and state governments for granting or not granting
sanction to prosecute corrupt and dishonest government officials and
politicians.
Due to such arbitrary powers being vested with the government,
corruption cases pertaining to thousands of influential persons have
been pending for several years as the required sanction was not
forthcoming, Khan contended in his petition.
He said the Uttar Pradesh governor refused sanction to prosecute
Mayawati in the Rs.1.75 billion Taj corridor corruption case despite
the apex court's direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to
place all its evidence against her before the special judge to
prosecute her.
Imputing a motive of political consideration to the governor in
shielding Mayawati, Khan said that, on the contrary, in some cases
some governments grant sanction to prosecute their political rivals
to settle political and personal scores.
He submitted that the rationale behind imposing Section 19 was to
prevent malicious prosecution of public figures and public servants,
but the beneficial provision was being misused by vested interests
to obtain immunity from prosecution for their "corrupt" actions.
While urging the court to declare Section 19 as unconstitutional,
the petitioner urged the court to give directions to the central and
state governments to complete the prosecutions within a limited
timeframe and dispense with the need for obtaining prior sanction.
Boloji.com is owned and managed by Boloji Media Inc Privacy Policy |
Disclaimer
No part of this Internet site may
be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
